Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In looking at the CLUSTER ALL patch I have applied, I am now wondering
> > why the ALL keyword is used. When we do VACUUM, we don't use ALL.
> > VACUUM vacuums all tables. Shouldn't' CLUSTER alone do the same thing.
>
> I agree, lose the ALL.
Good. I can take care of that or someone can submit a patch.
> > And what about REINDEX? That seems to have a different syntax from the
> > other two. Seems there should be some consistency.
>
> We don't have a REINDEX ALL, and I'm not in a hurry to invent one.
> (Especially, I'd not want to see Alvaro spending time on that instead
> of fixing the underlying btree-compaction problem ;-))
My point for REINDEX was a little different. The man pages shows:
REINDEX { DATABASE | TABLE | INDEX } <replaceable
class="PARAMETER">name</replaceable> [ FORCE ]
where we don't have ALL but we do have DATABASE. Do we need that
tri-valued secodn field for reindex because you can reindex a table _or_
and index, and hence DATABASE makes sense? I am just asking.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
